I've been mulling over an addition to the rules for the following, and offer
them up for peer review;)
Possible Ship size effects on combat
In theory, ship size ought to make larger ships easier to hit in some
circumstances. It doesnÂt seem particularly relevant to MT Missile or SML
Missiles, which only have to get within perhaps kilometers of the target, or
terminally guide themselves to it. Beam weapons and pulse torpedoes do not
steer during ÂflightÂ, and have to hit the target to affect it so a target
presenting more surface area ought to have a better chance of hitting. Needle
beams have to be able to hit individual systems, and a class ÂwhateverÂ
battery is the same size irrespective of the ship it is on. Drives and Shields
and FTL and any other systems that are a percentage of the total ship size are
both more difficult to damage significantly due to their size, but easier to
hit for the same reason, so lets say those factors cancel each other out. Wave
and nova guns are both area effect weapons, so they hit anything in their
path, although a larger ship will be in the way of more of the energy of the
attack, so probably also ought to take more damage. But we donÂt use them
anyway;) EMP missiles already affect larger ships in proportion to their size.
Submunitions packs perhaps ought to find it easier to hit larger ships, I
think of them as basically unguided.
My proposal for beam weapons and submunitions packs: There would be a modifier
to the amount of damage getting to the target at each range band beyond the
first one in the form of changing the number of dice rolled based on the
tonnage of the target ship. So it doesnÂt change the way factor 1 batteries
fire at all. Against a 170 mass ship, a class two beam would have 2 at 12Â, 2
at 24Â, and still zero at more than 24Â. A class three against a 10 mass
scout would have 3 at 12Â, 1 at 24Â and none at over 24Â. Pesky varmits.
1-15 -1
16-150 0
151+ +1
For pulse Torpedoes, a modifier to the dice roll to hit for each range bracket
beyond the first one, but never giving a better chance to hit than at the
first range bracket.
1-15 -1
16-50 0
51-150 +1
151-450 +2
Perhaps allow ships that are Âface on or Âend on to their attacker
(attacker in their forward or rear arc) to have any bonus to hit them reduced
by one.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Richard Slattery <richard@mgkc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Because the ships are based on mass (or volume), could you use, say, the cube
root of this to simulate size (or length, width and height)?
Or, for real miniatures, use their length (in Inches/cm/mm) as the
modifier, suitably scaled? Long miniatures being easier to hit on the side,
but hard to hit on the end? While cube-like (ST:TNG Borg cube) being
equally hard to hit from any direction.
Andrew Martin
> On 6 Oct 98, at 22:34, Alex & Andrew wrote:
> Richard Slattery <richard@mgkc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Well... it's facing surface area that matters, so it's a bit more complicated,
but I wanted to add the option but keep it simplified as is traditional with
full thrust. Measuring the width and height of a ship and multiplying it up,
and then factoring it is a bit further than I wanted to go. I chose a (sort)
of tripling of sizes and bands of tonnage because that sort of reflects a
doubling in surface area of a facing.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Richard,
If you need simple PSB for straight mass being determinate, you can always
claim that mass detectors are the only sensors useful though most ECM or at
the ranges/engagement times in FT battles. A bit thin, but with the
right obfuscating tech talk, it'll fly.
The_Beast
> On 6 Oct 98, at 14:05, devans@uneb.edu wrote:
> Richard,
<chuckle> Yup. I think coming up with a semi believable PBS reason for most
anything can be managed with a bit of thought. My main worry about making the
alteration is that it brings back break points in ship efficiency, which the
FB mostly did away with. However, as it stands I find smaller ships less
useful than I would like and wanted to cut them some slack, while not making
them uberweapons.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Richard Slattery wrote:
Guys, Just to keep the discussion alive, try a VERY simple solution.
Escorts are -1 (to hit) targets.
Cruisers are 0 (to hit) targets.
Capitals are +1 (to hit) targets.
Superships over 100+ mass are either +1 or +2, as you like it.
Just a thought,
> On 6 Oct 98, at 15:39, John and Roxanne Leary wrote:
> Guys,
Ok for FT and MT since they use classes, but I was intending it for
the FB. Also, I think i'd prefer the -1 for corvettes or smaller.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
John L said
> > Guys,
Richard Slattery replied
> Ok for FT and MT since they use classes, but I was intending it for
I wouldn't bother, personally. I see your point, though. You can take the
square of the cube root of the mass as being proportional to the "base"
modifier, and then let people modify it for different ship configurations. A
sphere might be defined as the basic shape. A longer, narrower ship
might make the bow and stern aspect = base-1 while making the other four
aspects = base+2. Or you could take base+1 or 2 for all aspects and
call it a dispersed structure ship, capable of launching fighters faster.....
However, this would affect other things as well. For example, armor should
be affected by the square/cube root ratio, to the benefit of larger
ships. Sensor signature would also be affected. You could do a lot of math
here--or just not worry about it.
In a message dated 98-10-06 21:36:30 EDT, you write:
<< I wouldn't bother, personally. I see your point, though. You can take the
square of the cube root of the mass as being proportional to the "base"
modifier, and then let people modify it for different ship configurations. A
sphere might be defined as the basic shape. A longer, narrower ship
might make the bow and stern aspect = base-1 while making the other
four
aspects = base+2. Or you could take base+1 or 2 for all aspects and
call it a dispersed structure ship, capable of launching fighters
faster.....
However, this would affect other things as well. For example, armor should
be affected by the square/cube root ratio, to the benefit of larger
ships. Sensor signature would also be affected. You could do a lot of math
here--or just not worry about it. >>
Ok, this sounds like some thing for FT3.0, sounds good. Unless of course you
like FT2.0... My $.02 Bye Stephen
> On Tue, 6 Oct 1998, John and Roxanne Leary wrote:
> Just to keep the discussion alive, try a VERY simple solution.
Well, it's been proposed before, and I see two problems with it:
a) There are no strict classes in FB, and re-intoducing such will just
bring back the "breakpoint designs" from old FT.
b) The FT beam resolution adapts very badly to dice modifiers. +/-1 is a
HUGE modifier because the only way to reasonably assign it is to each and
every dice.
IMHO, if you want to fidget like this, it's much better to adjust "effective
range to target", e.g. small fast ships are counted to be 4" farther away than
they really are.
John and Roxanne Leary <realjtl@sj.bigger.net>
06/10/98 23:39
Please respond to FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk
To: FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk
cc: (bcc: Mike Elliott/UK/BULL)
Subject: Re: [FT extra rules]
> Well... it's facing surface area that matters, so it's a bit more
> Just a thought,
You seem to be assuming FT2 here, not FB. The FB does away with the
Escort/Cruiser/capital distinction and some larger ships mass over 200
but are not Superships.
Mike Elliott
________________________________________________________________________
___
_____
*****************************************************************
Privileged/Confidential Information and/or Copyright Material may
be contained in this e-mail. The information and Material is
intended for the use of the intended addressee. If you are not
the intended addressee, or the person responsible for delivering
it to the intended addressee, you may not copy or deliver it to
anyone else or use it in any unauthorised manner. To do so is
prohibited and may be unlawful. If you receive this e-mail by
mistake, advise the sender immediately by using the reply
facility in your e-mail software.
Thank you.
*****************************************************************
th subj.?
> On 7 Oct 98, at 9:48, Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Oct 1998, John and Roxanne Leary wrote:
That is my main problem with it too.
> b) The FT beam resolution adapts very badly to dice modifiers. +/-
Well, my idea was for adding or subtracting a whole dice to a battery, and
only at the longer ranges... but that's a pretty corase method too.
> IMHO, if you want to fidget like this, it's much better to adjust
Hmm... I like this.. range bracket modifiers are far more easily scaled... and
it's possible to give benefits from having very manueverable ships under beam
or torpedo fire... i.e. ships with thrust of 6 or more 4" range change, 8 or
more, 6".... hmmmm.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Mikko Kurki-Suonio <maxxon@swob.dna.fi> wrote:
Yes. This sounds like a great way of doing it! Thanks, Mikko! It would even
work well with using the cube root of the mass minus a fudge factor.
Naturally, the bigger the ship, the closer they effectively are. We could
use, say, 50-60 MASS as being the mid point where ranges are as per the
FT rules. Now, I have to play with a spreadsheet to get some usuable numbers
that feel right.
Andrew Martin
> Mike.Elliott@bull.co.uk wrote:
> >Guys,
Mike,
You are correct, I do think in FTII terms. But the concept
is still valid, just the names/ship size need to be redefined to
allow for personal taste/bias.
Bye for now,
> Richard Slattery wrote:
...Snip...JTL
> > IMHO, if you want to fidget like this, it's much better to adjust
Yes, I can see your point that this can be used for a number of additional
changes: In SFB terms: Legendary captain. Legendary Gunnery officer. Ect.
This concept could also lead to four ships armed with the same weapons having
4 different ranges for one player to control. It is all a matter of how much
'detail' of 'accuracy' or PSB you are willing to put up with.
While what I suggested may be somewhat crude, it has the
virtue of simplicity. :-)
Bye for now.
> Richard Slattery <richard@mgkc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[snipped sensible rules]
> 1-15 -1
[more snippage]
While I agree with the principle behind the rules that were suggested, I think
that the method given here might add too much time to combat calculations and
detract from the speed of the game.